State v. Warner, A-15-858

James D. Warner, charged with first-degree sexual assault for an incident on March 16, 2013; convicted after jury trial and sentenced to 10–14 years (within 1–50 year statutory range).
Victim (K.P.) testified she awoke to Warner penetrating her after both had been drinking; police collected clothing and buccal swabs; no rape kit due to delay and showering.
NSP Crime Lab analyst Heidi Young testified PCR-STR testing identified mixed DNA: epithelial fractions showed two contributors; sperm fractions showed at least three contributors; Warner could not be excluded as a contributor to the sperm fractions; statistical match probabilities were calculated.
Warner moved in limine under Daubert / Schafersman to exclude DNA testimony; the court denied the motion pretrial and again when renewed at trial; no contemporaneous Daubert objection was made during the expert’s testimony.
Warner raised ineffective-assistance claims (failure to introduce a video, failure to object to hearsay from victim’s sister, failure to challenge hearsay in the PSR) and argued his sentence was excessive; appellate court reviewed admissibility, counsel performance, and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Warner)	Held
Admissibility of DNA / need for Daubert hearing	DNA PCR-STR methods are generally accepted, lab accredited, methodology valid; challenges to application go to weight, not admissibility	Court should perform Daubert/Schafersman gatekeeping on how methodology was applied to mixed samples (2 vs 3 contributors)	Court did not abuse discretion; methods and lab reliability satisfied Daubert/Schafersman; mixed-sample issues go to weight for the jury
Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial-level preservation & evidentiary objections)	Counsel acted within reasonable strategy; failures did not prejudice outcome	Counsel failed to preserve DNA challenge, failed to introduce impeachment video, failed to object to hearsay testimony and PSR hearsay, causing prejudice	Claims rejected: video would be cumulative; hearsay testimony was cumulative; counsel objected to PSR and court limited weight; record does not show deficient performance or prejudice
Sentencing excessive	State: sentence within statutory range and based on facts and PSR	Warner: mitigation (alcoholism, lack of prior violent convictions, remorse) warrants shorter term	Sentence (10–14 years) affirmed as not an abuse of discretion; within statutory limits and toward lower end of range

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping standard for expert scientific testimony)
Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (2001) (Nebraska application of Daubert principles)
State v. Bauldwin, 283 Neb. 678 (2012) (PCR-STR testimony reliability upheld)
State v. Ellis, 281 Neb. 571 (2011) (mixed-DNA sample issues affect weight, not admissibility)
State v. McClain, 285 Neb. 537 (2013) (preservation requirements for Daubert challenges)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)